Carroll v Thompson (No 2) [2014] NSWDC 97

Carroll v Thompson (No 2) [2014] NSWDC 97

The Court extended time for service on Stephen Thompson to and including 25 March 2013 because, despite conflicting evidence about whether service occurred on 18 March or 25 March 2013, Stephen Thompson's solicitors acknowledged service and the extension would regularise service. The applications concerning Jeffrey Thompson were adjourned because there was insufficient evidence explaining gaps in attempts at service and why personal service or service in the manner provided by law was not practicable.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim Arising From Alleged Fall at Rented Premises; Interlocutory Application Concerning Extension of Time for Service and Substituted Service / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Time to serve the statement of claim on Stephen Thompson extended; applications concerning Jeffrey Thompson adjourned.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time for Service' 'service of Statement of Claim' 'substituted Service']
['civil Procedure' 'personal Injury'] ['extension of Time for Service' 'service of Statement of Claim' 'substituted Service']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim Arising From Alleged Fall at Rented Premises; Interlocutory Application Concerning Extension of Time for Service and Substituted Service / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended to validate service of the statement of claim on Stephen Thompson up to and including 25 March 2013.' 'Whether time should be extended to serve Jeffrey Thompson.' 'Whether substituted service should be ordered in respect of Jeffrey Thompson.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court extended time for service on Stephen Thompson to and including 25 March 2013 because, despite conflicting evidence about whether service occurred on 18 March or 25 March 2013, Stephen Thompson's solicitors acknowledged service and the extension would regularise service. The applications concerning Jeffrey Thompson were adjourned because there was insufficient evidence explaining gaps in attempts at service and why personal service or service in the manner provided by law was not practicable.

Court Disposition

Time to serve the statement of claim on Stephen Thompson extended; applications concerning Jeffrey Thompson adjourned.

Orders

  • ['Time to serve the statement of claim on Stephen Thompson be extended to and including 25 March 2013.' "The plaintiff's application to extend time to serve Jeffrey Thompson and application for substituted service on Jeffrey Thompson are adjourned to a date to be fixed." "The two applications are stood over to...